Minot committee questions transparency, timelines and role of Chamber‑EDC in Magic Fund reviews

The Economic Development Plan Review Committee on Tuesday reviewed the City of Minot’s contract relationship with the Minot Area Chamber EDC (MACEDC), pressing the chamber/EDC’s leaders and city staff for clearer accounting of public funds, faster timelines for Magic Fund screening and firmer definitions of each party’s role.

Committee members focused their questions on how the $666,000 service agreement between MACEDC and the City of Minot is used, how the city and MACEDC divide responsibilities for business recruitment and retention, and how applications that seek Magic Fund (primary‑sector) money are screened and routed. The committee sought more detailed breakdowns of the contract, clarification of who sees which applications and whether the Magic Fund screening committee should review more of the requests that MACEDC filters out.

MACEDC board chair Bridal Ackerman told the committee that MACEDC is contracted to provide “economic development, workforce development, and military support. Those are the 3.” She described multiple regular touchpoints with city staff—monthly meetings with the city manager, semiannual and annual reports to the city, quarterly business retention and expansion outreach, and participation on several local boards and committees—and said the organization provides annual audits of business incentive agreements tied to intermodal property and supports audits of Magic Fund recipients.

Mark Lyman, who leads economic development for MACEDC, said the organization’s 5‑year strategic plan rests on five pillars (workforce development, community development, economic development, military support and member investor services) and that the pillars “are not…designed to change every 3 to 6 months.” He described the application process for Magic Fund money: applicants submit an application with financials and other required items; MACEDC staff coach prospective applicants and determine whether they conform to primary‑sector criteria; if they conform, MACEDC forwards the package with a recommendation to the Magic Fund screening committee.

City staff and committee members repeatedly raised transparency and process questions. The committee asked whether the city should require MACEDC to provide a more detailed annual breakdown showing how the city’s contract dollars are spent. Committee member Jordan (chair of the Magic Fund screening committee) said he is concerned about transparency when nonprofit review steps substitute for public review: “If you qualify for those dollars in my book, I don't wanna be the person that's playing favorites,” he said.

City staff reiterated legal constraints tied to the legacy Magic Fund and state business‑incentive rules. City staff member Dave told the committee there has been litigation in the Magic Fund’s history and cautioned the group to follow statutory rules: “We have to be very careful that we follow the rules as they're set forth and that we we keep things on track,” he said. City Manager Harold said the guidelines were designed so “if you don't pass phase 1, you don't get to go to phase 2,” meaning applications that fail an initial primary‑sector check should not proceed to later review stages.

Committee members also pressed the chamber/EDC on operational detail. Lyman said the $666,000 contract includes about $106,250 for Task Force 21 (military support), leaving roughly $550,000 supporting economic development activities and staff. He said that multiple staff members are funded in part by the contract and that dollars are used for staffing, site‑selector outreach, travel when required, and work such as responding to RFPs and coordinating expansions. Lyman noted that many site‑selector contacts now begin with digital data rather than in‑person hospitality, and he recommended consolidating some prescriptive contract language into higher‑level performance deliverables so MACEDC can adapt tactics over time.

Committee members asked for several follow‑ups. Members proposed that MACEDC provide a clearer line‑item or categorical breakdown as part of its annual budget submission, that the Magic Fund screening committee receive notice and summaries for more of the applications MACEDC declines at the first stage, and that the city and MACEDC consider consolidating public economic development data (labor shed, site characteristics, ports/rail access) into a single, public data package for site selectors.

No final policy changes were approved during the meeting. The committee recorded routine procedural actions—approval of minutes by roll call and a motion to adjourn—but did not vote on the MACEDC contract, the Magic Fund guidelines or any ordinance changes.

The committee said it will continue the conversation in future meetings and asked staff and MACEDC to return with the requested materials: a clearer breakdown of the city funds MACEDC spends, a recommended timeline or notice procedure for Magic Fund screening committee review, and an options paper on consolidating economic data for site selectors and investors.

Ending: Committee chair Blessam closed the meeting after setting out next steps for staff and MACEDC to provide follow‑up materials; no changes to the contract or Magic Fund rules were adopted at this session.